In the course of part 2 of this series, which was all about overcoming a resistance to studying rules for their own sake, I suggested that the GM learning a new set of rules should watch for patterns, and use them to make understanding the rules a little easier.

Starting in this part of the series, I’m going to start explaining some of those patterns. and how rules systems inherantly contain two elements that form a foundation from which an understanding of all the other game mechanics and internal systems can be founded. These are the Rules Touchstones, your guides through the maze of the rules. The first of these is the combat system, and the second – which will occupy our attention in Part 6 – is Character Generation.

Styles of Combat system

The Combat System is the more important of the two. There are two basic styles of combat system, and they are distinguished by the damage-handling subsystem. Specifically, does damage penetrate defences or does it alter the probability of the inflicting of damage?

This distinction has ramifications throughout the rest of the combat system; identifying what type of system is in place provides a key indicator of what to look for in other subsystems relating to combat, and – by inferance and extension – how non-combat systems function.

Damage Penetration Systems

This is probably the less-familiar of the two. It is the system used by Rolemaster, and by classic Traveller, amongst others.

This type of system frequently has relatively consistent hit points from one individual to another, regardless of the level of experience/expertise of the individual;

Attacks generally hit the target;

Armour and other such defences subtract from the amount of damage inflicted;

Combat resolution may take the form of opposed rolls, or both attack and defence may be fixed numeric values determined from the individual’s stats;

If both attack and defence are fixed, damage will be more variable, and may include some ‘exploding’ componant;

If attack resolution is by opposed rolls, the damage may be fixed by weapon type;

Damage is often broken into different types with different effects.

Damage Penetration-style systems are better suited to highly-specific detail-oriented approaches, as that last point implies. It is often a question not of how much damage a particular weapon or attack inflicts, but how much damage it inflicts when opposed by this type of armour as compared to that. This means that each type of pole arm has a completely different set of combat characteristics, for example, which is a far more accurate reflection of the historical origins of such weapons.

This can make these systems slower but more realistic. In such systems, everything has to be placed in its proper context before it can be meaningfully interpreted, and many of the values that d&d players expect to be fixed aren’t, and vice versa.

Probability Alteration Systems

The alternative is to define the target value of an attack roll not as the number needed to hit, but as the number needed to both hit and inflict damage. In this context, armour no longer absorbs damage directed at the wearer, it alters the likelyhood of damage being experienced at all.

This is the basic approach employed by D&D since the game first came out. It has quite different characteristics to the first system considered:

This type of system frequently varies the number of hit points to reflect increased skill in battle;

Attacks often do not hit the target, but when they do, they usually automatically inflict damage;

That’s because armour and other defences don’t alter the damage done, they reduce the likelyhood of damage being experienced by the target;

Combat resolution rests on a single die roll with circumstancial modifiers which must achieve a target value, based on the defender’s ability and protection, or better;

Damage per blow is relatively fixed within a narrow range;

Damage is usually treated in a collective manner, without distinguishing between different types such as crushing, slashing, stabbing, electrical, fire, etc.

Probability Alteration systems are more abstract, and better suited to less realistic combat modes, with far greater capacity for the fantastic. A given weapon design will usually inflict the same amount of damage with the same level of variability regardless of what sort of armour or protection the target has.

Hybrids

Some game systems are a complex hybrid of both types. The example with which I am most familiar is the Hero System, in which each of the key factors is inherantly variable. While this has benefits in terms of flexibility, it can also increase the risk of strange synergies and loopholes within the rules that produce unexpectedly severe or mild results.

Where there is one complexity, there is usually another, and then another. Not only does the hero system distinguish between two types of attack modes (killing vs standard attacks), it distinguishes between three attack types (physical, energy, and mental), and it distinguishes between two types of damage (stun and body), and on top of all that, it is replete with exceptions to all of these, where different attack types are given unique combat resolution systems – flash attacks, transforms, presence attacks, and so on. And, over the top of that layer of complexity are all the modifiers that can be applied to distinguish one attack from another – Armour Piercing, Penetrating, No Normal Defence, and the like – and multiple kinds of defence, such as force fields, armour, ablative armour, etc.

Combat As A Systems Touchstone

Entirely aside from the fact that combat is a major element in any RPG campaign, and hence any increase in understanding the combat subsystem is a valuable achievement in and of itself, the combat system is a key to a number of other elements in most game systems.

Perhaps the most obvious point of connection between the combat system and the rest of the game is the approach that the rules system takes to skill resolution. The truth of this statement is easy to prove: pick any game system that you already know and consider the similarity between the way attack rolls are resolved and the way skill tests are resolved. Are modifiers applied to the roll, to the basis of the roll, to the size or number of dice rolled, or to the target to be achieved? How large are the modifiers? How are they determined?

How is success or failure determined? How are fair fights scaled? Is the system more detail-oriented, or more abstract? How does magic or technology (as appropriate) interact with the system? How is perception figured? How are ranges handled (more on that in part 7 of this series). How are tactics and circumstances translated into game mechanics? How do characters improve their abilities? How about movement?

There are few subsystems within the mechanics of any game that intersect with so many other parts of the overall game system. That’s why the combat system is one of the best possible places to start when learning a new system, as recommended in the third part of this series, and why it is one of the two rules touchstones.

I am a bit disappointed that you started with combat for Rules Touchstones, Mike. This seems rather a D&D-esque viewpoint. Combat is just one form of conflict resolution, and although combat is often the most common and comprehensive form of conflict resolution in games, starting with it first often gives the wrong idea about the role combat has in many systems. It also leads to a lot more rail-roading on the part of GMs to get the PCs to combat, at the cost of other mechanics, simply because this is what the GM knows. Ultimately this just leads to a perpetuation of the vicious circle that results in increasing combat focus in systems today.

In games like D&D, combat is often the primary, if not the only way to handle situations, but in many systems it is often regarded as a last resort, because it is often brutal and short. Some games even consider combat a failure state – that is, it is a penalty for failing at something else, rather than the desired focus of the rules, with the consequence of losing a character, sometimes permanently, a real possibility.

In your conclusion for combat as a touchstone, you cite as proof being the ability to pick any system with combat and comparing it to other aspects of the system, which are also regarded as conflict resolution systems. In actuality, it is the reverse that is more true – pick any aspect of any rules system and compare it to the inevitable combat mechanics. This is expected when you look how the best systems have unified conflict resolution systems, and as such many parts of the system will inevitably be similar because they are all conflict resolution systems. This is often regarded as the “core mechanic” of any system, and quite often, in the absence of branding these core mechanics define exactly what system is used.

For example, the d20 core mechanic, that powers 3.x/4.x is the same for combat, for skills, and for saves. Early versions of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay used a percentile system for conflict resolution that worked the same for combat, skills, and saves. West End Games used d6 piles in their Star Wars game, while World of Darkness uses a success-count based on d10 die pools.

The damaging handling differentiation is a minor thing to note compared to conflict resolution, because more often than not, success or failure in a task, even combat, is much more important than the how good did they succeed. This is evidenced by the fact that you have to reference a hybrid category where attack and damage are combined into a single check, which is always a success or failure check.

As such, I would stress that there are more important aspects to cover than combat, particularly damage, that are required to obtain Rules Mastery of any given system. Personally, after the “core mechanic” I feel the second most important aspect is character generation, and this is the means through which the players interact with the world and play the game, and thus has the greatest impact upon conflict resolution. In virtually all cases, characters are mostly the application of personalised modifiers to the conflict resolution system, and understanding the conflict resolution system will do the most to demystify characters and stat-blocks throughout the rules you are trying to master.Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

@ Da’Vane: Actually, I was thinking about the Hero System, and Traveller, and Torg, and Gurps, and Tunnels & Trolls, and Villains & Vigilantes, and Rolemaster, and even games like Toon, when I wrote this. Accepting the generalisation of “Combat System” into “Conflict Resolution System”, I can’t think of any RPG where this is not a central aspect of the gameplay.

Having said that, the contention is not that mastering the combat system – or the combat resolution system – will in and of itself confer mastery of the game system in question; just that it is a central focus of the game mechanics and that understand this microcosm can be your window into gaining that mastery.

I would also argue that damage handling is a key aspect to the mindset of conflict resolution, and that differentiation in this respect reveals elements of an underlying conceptual framework that are relevent to a broader understanding of the conflict resolution system, and hence to the rest of the system.

The starting point is not the destination; it’s just the starting point.

You wrote: “In actuality, it is the reverse that is more true – pick any aspect of any rules system and compare it to the inevitable combat mechanics.”

Your statement implies that I was making some causal connection between the two. That was not the intent, nor I believe, the case. Regardless of the reasons for the similarity of mechanical processing between the game systems and subsystems in question, or which came first, they are usually analagous or at least comparable; understanding one helps to understand the other.

And because conflict resolution is connected to so many aspects of the mechanics, it can be viewed as a central connection to the rest of the rules, at least in terms of game mechanics.

I will cover character generation in detail as the second of the touchstones in the next part of the series – though I may take a break and write something for those who might not be interested in this particular topic first.

On reviewing my reply, I note that I have failed to address one point in your comment – that of the conflict resolution system taking precedence over character generation as a touchstone for understanding the game mechanics.

Until very late in the final review, I didn’t distinguish between the two – this just happened to be first. But while conducting that review, the thought occurred to me that character generation is something that is performed only infrequently; as GMs we don’t want to follow the same process that players have to go through in order to create a character, we want shortcuts and aproximations because NPCs don’t need to be as universally-detailed as a PC does, and the time can be better spent elsewhere. NPCs are (usually) fireflies, here one moment and gone the next. Conflict Resolution, on the other hand, will be central to almost every session of play. It’s that ubiquity, and no other factor, that prompted me to rate the combat system as #1.

Combat as a central aspect of play is the result of a cycle of preconceptions and feedback. Most people begin roleplaying with games like D&D where combat is fairly important, and thus as they learn, they tend to come to the point where combat is seen as the main part of the game, so while other aspects wither away as they are underutilised, combat become more and more complicated because it becomes a bigger part of the game.

Compare a skill challenge to sneak past a guard in front of a door to a fight with a guard in front of a door. Both ultimately serve the same purpose – they provide the potential for conflict when the PC try to fulfil their objective of getting through the door. Yet, which system is favoured, and the most complex?

Both could easily be resolved with a single check, like a skill challenge, and both could easily become complicated full of tactical opportunity with the same depth of combat, yet systems generally favour simplicity for skills, and complexity for combat. Each increasing iteration of various systems generally sees this difference exaggerate and become glaringly obvious.

This is all a result of perceptions. Combat is seen as exciting and adventurous, where as skills are often brushed over quickly, unless they some how have combat implications.

There is another factor too – the fact that combat is often a last result or failure state, and everything else is often seen largely as a means to avoid combat. This tends to vary depending upon the complexity and deadliness of combat in the system, but essentially it comes to the point that you have major disparities between combat and non-combat characters, to the point that you can actually end up playing two different games, with both halves vying for dominance at the gaming table.

The non-combat characters will strive to avoid combat, because they are rarely any good in combat, and generally either die or end up twiddling their thumbs should combat happen. On the other hand, the combat characters, who normally end up having little to do outside of combat, are faced with the choice of either provoking combat so they can have fun, or simply watching the others play and hoping they will fail so their character has a go at being useful.

This is a vicious feedback cycle, where you will end up with everyone becoming a combat character, even if it’s not appropriate for the concept, putting even more focus on combat because it is now the entire game. The alternative, which is much rarer, is that the party will head towards a specific character type, and face specific challenges, other than combat, such as magic, politics, investigation, computer hacking, or stealth, set up with the premise that everyone is a rogue, special agent, decker, or senator, for instance. In such rare cases, the conflict resolution system for the relevant challenge will often become as complicated, if not more so, than combat, effectively becoming a combat replacement.

Combat is only the biggest, most common, and most comprehensive aspect of systems because it’s the part that games tend to focus on, often seeing everything else as a chore that should be put to the back burner and simplified. It becomes varied and tactically rich, because the focus of designers is on making combat this way. There’s a plethora of systems with different combat manoeuvres, but exactly how many systems actually deal with haggling with a merchant in the same manner, even though in theory there is no reason why haggling with a merchant to get a good deal or extra information cannot have the same range of options as combat.

Spycraft showed this to be the case when they presented mechanics for infiltration, hacking, brainwashing, chase scenes, manhunts, and seduction that were as in depth and as fun as combat, even though, just like combat, these are only really fun if you have a character designed for such challenges.

Normally, GMs DO follow the same process of character generation for NPCs as players do for PCs, but they often get to do it bit by bit as they need to, when they need to, and often manage to do it much quicker, because they already know the role that the NPC is supposed to play. NPCs also have the feature that they rarely need to consider generalising or existing outside their designated role.Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

Some good points there, Da’Vane. I don’t completely agree with your general premise that combat is central because everything else is considered secondary; the fact is that Combat is a shared activity at the game table, while everything else is essentially a solo performance (excluding roleplay itself). I am still of the opinion that combat, or conflict resolution, is central because it is a staple of every genre.

You can’t have a western without shootouts.
You can’t have a pulp game without battling the forces of villainy.
You can’t have a spy game without confronting the bad guy.
You can’t have swords and sorcery without the swords.
You can’t have horror without confronting the beastie (and/or those summoning it).
And as for superheros…. well, no more need be said!

I can’t think of an RPG genre without finding some combat or conflict resolution requirement, not because the players insist on it being there but because it’s a central componant of the genre, however stylised. And I can’t think of an RPG that doesn’t make conflict resolution central – and that usually means battle with an enemy.

That’s not to say that other system elements cannot and should not match combat for sophistication; as you point out, Spycraft proves otherwise.

Finally… Actually, I don’t know any GM who doesn’t employ shortcuts in character generation that would be forbidden to a player, except where the NPC is to be a relatively permanent fixture within the campaign. Everything from writing down the stat values desired instead of rolling for them through to leaving things out that you don’t expect to need right now. You might think that this means that I don’t know many GMs, but I would refute that; 9 of 12 of the people I play with GM at least semi-regularly, the tenth has just tried his hand at it (spectacular failure) and the eleventh desperately wants to, but wants to swim the four minute mile before he can dogpaddle, with his own world, his own campaign background, etc. The trick is knowing what you are going to need to specify and what you can leave blank or generic!

Personally, I’m kind of divided on the issue. I like a game best where players don’t have to choose (and really, are not allowed to choose) combat over skills.

In our upcoming RPG from Level 99 Games, Mystic Empyrean, there is only one resolution system for everything (combat, skills, social, etc). Players have seven abstract skill groups, and must use these to accomplish the same feats in different ways. For example, the strength/power/destruction focused character can haggle just as well as the social/bluff/feint character–he just has to use strongarm tactics and intimidation instead of amicability. The social/feint/bluff character can fight with the same chance of success as the strength/power/destruction character–he just has to trick the monster into a weak spot or utilize his henchmen effectively.

I agree that the combat system of a game should tell you something about the way the game is played, and it certainly is the center of most RPGs. I would say that “combat is a major element in any RPG campaign” is a bit of a broad stroke to paint with. I’ve played games where fighting happened once over the course of the whole campaign, and the combat system turned out to just be “oh, your strength is higher, you kick his ass”. (Yes, that really is the combat system for Nobilis, a political RPG about deities)

Anyways, a nice read, and definitely relevant for anyone who’s playing a game with combat, or designing a game with combat, for that matter.

@Mike – Conflict, not combat, is core to each genre. Combat is just one method of conflict resolution, even if it is the most prevailent.

Combat is only a shared activity because this is the way combat is set up. It is rare that anybody can afford to stay out of combat if the party is to succeed. However, with other tasks and conflicts, it is very easy for others to sit back and let one or two characters handle the challenge, because there is often either little else for others to do when the challenge is designed, or because there is little consequence of failure since such situations normally devolve to combat. With this mindset, other conflicts are often ignored completely and combat is just assumed, as a means to speed up the game.

The differentiations of how damage is handled is moot at this point, and only relevant because of the focus on combat, because damage is the most likely consequence of combat. However, damage can also be acquired from other sources of failure, which isn’t combat-based, thus it would be more accurately covered in an article related to characters, death, healing, and recovery, which is usually an important third touchstone, because health and recovery affects the pacing of the game. After all, a session/adventure/campaign can consist of just a single encounter, thus there is no need for downtime, especially in tournament play.

Your damage variations are actually conflict resolution variants – since they determine the probably of getting hit, and thus getting hurt in combat. Some systems use discrete points to indicate how hurt a character is, others use a survival check (often with increasing penalties) to determine whether or not a character survives the attack, or some form of hybrid. You then get the rules for damage prevention, i.e. armour, which normally forms into ablative protection (it reduces the discrete points) or a modifier to the conflict resolution (often because it is assumed armour absorbs all damage). Other conflict resolution sections often use similar scoring methods for success and failure, with similar rules.

Entire systems essentially break down into “Who wins?” and “How much?” aspects. This article looks more at the “How much?” for combat, than the “Who wins?” which is probably much more important for a GM to master. Especially when this also breaks down into two types mentioned only in passing:

Opposed checks (including set DCs) where the result of the check is compared directly against another source. D20 uses this method – although some DCs are static, they can easily be considered to have the opponent taking 10 for ease and speed, particularly if they are not actively opposing the PCs, such as if the source is an environmental factor (that said – imagine the PCs climbing a giant Earth Elemental, you could easily replace the Climb DC with an opposed roll as the Earth Elemental actively tries to throw them off).

Self checks – the PCs checks are compared to their own abilities, and factors normally provide modifiers to the check. Thus, a PC has a set TN or percentage chance of success regardless, which is useful for status quo games. In these systems, opposed checks often work out as comparing degrees of success. Of course, sometimes the rules also use check sequencing for opposed checks – for example, a PC might roll to hit, and then if successful, the opponent then rolls for defence to counter the successful hit, effectively undoing the previous character’s success. Early incarnations of WFRP use this method of conflict resolution.Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

@ Da’Vane: In every one of the examples that I mentioned (can’t have A without B), it is Combat that is at least as central to the genre as conflict resolution. So I can only partially go along with the opening statement of your reply.

Combat is generally a shared activity because (and this is something I don’t necessarily agree with) combat is usually what wins rewards from the game system – experience and trinkets to add to the collection.

Normally, that doesn’t matter too much, because combat and conflict resolution are often synonymous, but it becomes important when someone opts for a non-violent solution to a problem – usually resolved by awarding whatever the characters would have gotten from taking the violent road and succeding.

And I would regard the determination of “who wins” as a fundamental element of any conflict resolution system, as is Damage handling and recovery.

@ Church: You have to pose the question before an answer can be formulated! So it is possible that the article is just as relevent to anyone designing a game system which doesn’t place a combat system at the centre of all things, by posing the question “what don’t we want?”

In terms of my personal game design philosophy, where not overridden by genre considerations, I absolutely agree with you regarding the question of whether or not combat should be no more or less viable a choice to any other solution to a problem and vice-versa. It’s been a long-standing rule at my table that anyone solving a confrontation that’s headed for violence by any non-violent means achieves the same rewards as they would if they had taken the easy way out – and often receive a bonus for creative thinking or roleplay as well. That said, most systems modify the rewards based on the cost of success, giving more for the hard-won victories and less for those without; so sometimes such solutions pay smaller rewards in game mechanics terms. On the other hand, they also pose a much smaller risk to the wellbeing of the character, so it all balances out.

But that’s me, and not a lot of game systems go along with that approach; understanding how conflict is resolved is still an excellent way of getting to grips with most RPGs.

@Mike: I agree with you about the rewards for combat – it’s another reason why combat is so much as the forefront of conflict resolution. However, in your examples, you are actually describing conflicts, rather than combat.

The western shootout – ever heard of a Mexican stand-off? Drawing guns and machismo is as much part of the western genre as firing lots of bullets. In fact, you CAN have a western without a shootout for this precise purpose.

All of your other examples are even less concrete – battling the forces of villainy does not mean combat – it means thwarting their plans. Flash Gordon and Indiana Jones spent more time undoing the efforts of Ming the Merciless and the Nazis respectively than they did in direct combat.

Likewise with the spy game – particularly if it is a political or criminal drama, where it is the chase rather than the final scene that is important, and the culprit is apprehended and detained. This can be done through the use of chases, manhunts, and sleuthing to the classic bond-villain monologue that leads to the superspy putting in the money works and saving the day. It doesn’t have to be combat.

As you say, the difference between conflict resolution and combat only applies when non-combat options are chosen, and basically revolves around getting the rewards for combat without the actual combat. In the eyes of many, this is cheating, and adventures and campaigns are rarely structured for this purpose, because of the inherent assumption that combat is the be all and end all of conflict resolution and roleplaying games.

This is especially the case for those systems where combat is brutal and deadly, and very much a failure state, and any given combat can end a campaign, unless you fudge the dice or remove the risk from the system.

Having seen adventures designed for such systems written by people that have to deal with the fact that the preconception is combat first, these adventures are a mess. The standard “dungeon crawl” is a death-trap in such systems, yet novice writers and GMs still try and create adventures and encounters like it is heroic D&D. It’s like trying to run through any 4th edition adventure using OD&D rules without taking into account the vast amount of power creep between editions.

This article series is about Rules Mastery in general, and should apply to any system, yet you have already stated you wrote this specific article with specific systems in mind, all of which share a number of common traits, including a huge emphasis on combat over other aspects of the system. As such, it undermines itself, because it already limits it’s own definition of generic with given assumptions, with little regard to what those assumptions actually are.

It’s self limiting, and basically invites a whole bunch of people, including myself, to simply start listing all the systems that are different and break from this narrowed viewpoint, when ideally the series should be about providing the broader overview so that GMs can learn any new system quickly and easily.Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

A western which normally led to a mexican standoff rather than a resolution would get really boring really quickly.

Flash Gordon was in combat regularly, as was Buck Rogers. And Indiana Jones gets into a scrape at the drop of a fedora, with the occasional exception as variety.

How often is James Bond’s life in danger? It happens regularly. Or the Avengers? Or the Man From Uncle? Combat can’t be tossed aside so easily.

Every system that I’ve ever played, and every system (with the one exception provided by Church) that I’ve ever heard of for a roleplaying game has combat at it’s centre, whether you or I like it or not, and understanding the combat system is therefore a shortcut in virtually every case to understanding the game system, or a large chunk of it. So I don’t see it as self-limiting, I see it as general advice that usually works.

Can there be exceptions? Of course. But if I want to learn a new rules system, I’ll start by reading and analyzing the combat resolution section, and only if that seems inadequate to a central role will I start wondering about an unusual focus within the game system.

NO system or course of study will cover every possible permuutation and combination of systems. Universal advice is a pipe dream, an inobtainable ideal, like absolute zero.

It will be interesting to see what you make of the character-generation-as-a-touchstone article when it’s finished.

@Mike: While it is true combat cannot be dropped easily, what is experienced is that everything else is being dropped easily in favour of combat. Combat is not the only form of conflict resolution, yet many systems treat it as such, and this leads to ever increasing focus on combat, and less focus on else where until combat IS the only form of conflict resolution for certain systems.

You ask how often James Bond life is in danger – it is a lot. But exactly how much of that danger comes from combat? Combat is in there, but there’s also chase scenes, death traps, saving the world, braving natural hazards, and a whole slew of variety. Each, on their own, is only a minor exception, yet when combined together, the exceptions are in fact the majority, and it is combat that is the exception.

But a big part of this also comes down to what is regarded as combat. At it’s simplest – combat is simply hitting something. That’s about as exciting as a shopping trip. But, when you are fighting on top of an oil tanker, or struggling from a cargo plane from high altitude, it becomes exciting – even though this excitement doesn’t necessarily stem from the combat itself, but the larger circumstances surrounding it.

It seems almost hypocritical that great pains are made for combat to be interesting and exciting, so it’s not just boring beating each other up, yet other forms of conflict resolution rarely get the same treatment. If combat can be made exciting by the circumstances, then a tense Mexican stand-off, with brutal quip trading and psychological warfare to try and get your opponents to back down can also be made exciting. Yet, they are not.

This is mainly a point of perception – if you really don’t like the fact that combat is the be all and end all of conflict resolution, then the way to change that is to change the way people think. This can be done by increasing awareness that combat is just one aspect of conflict resolution. The fact that you start looking at the combat rules, and then look for exceptions, reinforces the nature of combat as the core of the game, and that everything else is supplementary to that fact.

If anything, I tend to take the reverse approach – I look at character generation first, as this normally highlights the core conflict resolution mechanic, and then look to see how that conflict resolution mechanic applies to combat, skills, magic, exploration, and so forth.

As an aside, changing people’s perceptions and the way they think is a form of power known as provocation that was identified by Foucault, in contrast to the standard methods of power that we normally think of as power. It basically revolves around principles that we change the way ourselves and others think, by changing and challenging default assumptions, such as the fact that combat is core to any rules system. By understanding and making others aware of the larger picture, such that combat is only part of the larger mechanics for conflict resolution, it becomes more widely accepted. This is the same way that new ideas slowly grow to be adopted as standard practices.

Every time we write advocating change or perception, we are using this power, and you’ve used enough of it in your previous articles. It therefore seems odd that you would seem so resigned to combat being core for games whether you “like it or not” – when the very point is that if you don’t like it, you change it, and in all cases strive to see the bigger picture.

I just thought you might be interested to know that little bit about Foucalt’s theory of power through provocation. It’s a bit more in depth than what I’ve gone into here, but it is fundamentally the basics of neurolinguistic programming. This article has basically reinforced the idea that the first thing any Rules Master should do is learn the combat mechanics because it is so important, when really what you are talking about is conflict resolution mechanics.

“Who wins?” is the most important question any rules system needs to answer, but you’ve inadvertently changed that to “who wins in combat?” when it should be “who wins at anything?”Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

Ah, now we’re getting to the nub of it. I have, essentially, said that combat/conflict resolution is central to most RPGs, take advantage of the face when trying to learn a new system; your rejoinders are intended to say that it should not be that way, but have actually said that they aren’t that way. The ‘should not be’ position I can get behind completely and support, but the ‘is not’ seems false-to-fact to me.

I never stated that combat was the be-all and end-all of mastering a game system, just that it was a useful starting point that was common to most if not all systems – and I stand by that statement.

I had seen the cartoon before, but had forgotten it – thanks for reminding me.

@Mike: I think what the issue is here, if you can call it an issue – is that you see this as combat/conflict resolution, when it should really be conflict resolution/combat.

But, having said that, I do need to clarify – what I am actually saying is not only is it that this ‘should not be’, but also that ‘they aren’t ALWAYS this way.’

For indeed, they are not, because there are systems for which combat is no different from any any other form of conflict resolution. It only takes one exception to disprove the wall. It may seem obvious, because you haven’t said that they are not always this way, but you will be surprised at how many people often overlook the obvious because it is taken for granted.

Just because the common trend and the mainstream systems DO focus on combat more than anything else, make it very easy for people to think that all systems are always like this.

One of the biggest gripes with 4th Edition is the fact that aside from skills that relate to combat and a few simple skill challenges, it has actually become significantly harder to do anything that it not combat-related, to the point that players are having to extensively house-rule non-combat elements back into D&D 4th Edition. It can be quite difficult to come up with things that work with existing 4th Edition mechanics because of it’s extreme combat-focus that makes it pretty unwieldy for non-combat encounters.Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

All fair enough, Da’Vane. But if something is only true 90% of the time, that doesn’t make a problem solution that relies on that truth something that should be ignored – the fact that it will work 90% of the time means that it will usually be perfectly valid. A practical solution that works only 90% or 80% or even 50% of the time is better than no solution at all.

And I agree completely with the gripes about 4e. It seems designed to capture CCG players and online gamers and to heck with the existing ROLEplaying market.

@ Mike: Don’t get me wrong – the article is good, and valid, plus I enjoy discussions like this. Indeed, talking about it is better than not talking about it, just as a partial solution is better than no solution.

Yet, it helps to acknowledge the fact that it is a partial solution, and to highlight the things that it doesn’t necessarily solve – that missing 10% or 20%, as it were. This highlights areas where the solution could be improved later – either by yourself or others.

With the increasing shift towards expertise in the industry, gaming theory for all types of games are quickly become more of a theoretical science than ever before. This is making it easier to apply the scientific method to their development, as there is and increased focus on discourse and experimentation by our peers. I wonder how long before RPG design degrees start emerging – I know a few companies that could probably use a refresher… :DDa’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook

I’m glad you wrote that, Da’Vane, as you seemed to be questioning its validity in your early posts.

To be honest, I had a lot of trouble writing this article; I had to completely scrap what I had written and start over, multiple times, as it was easy for it to bog down and then become lost in a bewildering maze. I could see the validity of the approach, and I’ve used it succesfully in the past, but feared that I had abstracted it to the point where it was no longer clear.

This is why it is often easier to take the top down approach, because mazes are always easier to solve from above. Plus, it has the benefit that you cover a lot of ground quicker, yet can always return to fill in more details later.

For example, some of the hardest and most complex rules relate to combat situations, particularly if there are a lot of tactical elements involved. There’s grappling, fighting underwater, different firing modes, and all sorts of other additional options which really only apply to combat.

These are best learnt when needed, as they can often inspire a GM to shake up their encounters and adventures a bit, just to test out the rules, and don’t overload the GM and players with a lot of information all at once.

The key, as was mentioned previously in part three http://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/rules-mastery-3/ is to structure the learning as if it was an introductory game. Of course, this often has the issue that the GM is forced to balance excitement and adventure, as well as the player’s tendency to run before they can walk, with the need for structured learning.

As discussed, combat is often the most fun aspects of any game system because it is usually the most in depth and tactical part of the game, thus there is often a drive to get the PCs into combat as soon as possible, even though these rules are often extremely complex, and what might otherwise be a 5 minute combat encounter can easily take an hour or two as everybody learns the vast amount of information they are given.

Yet, if the need to learn and keep things simple at first is adhered to, then it’s often easier to break it down into steps and ease everyone in gently. For example, the idea of conflict resolution at the core, rather than combat, will often put much simpler skill checks up front, to deal with easier challenges, and slowly build up complexity.

This is also a reason why amnesia and prison escape adventures are common when starting with a new system, because starting with nothing and learning slowly through play is better than handling a lot of information at once.

True, but then it limits learning to the GMs expectations and preconceptions. Sometimes a true test of a system, and thus better learning, comes from getting others to play it with you. Thus, you learn to cope with what they are inclined to do, rather than what you assume. This is why group study is often so effective.Da’ Vane recently posted..The Legend of Zelda Revised Sourcebook